To whom it may concern...
Usenet and all NNTP networks are about as strict as they can be. In fact, every
time that I have tried to create a News echo or what not.. It is not even asking
my clients for Passwords.
I lay low on this subject, but if we could create a newsnet --- "Usenet-Next"
how would you strengthen the securities?
Regards,
Kris
Re: Re: Usenet-Next - A proposal to create a very strict NNTP networ
> On 2016-11-20 07:07 PM, Deavmi wrote:
> > On 2016-11-20 06:44 PM, Deavmi wrote:
> >> So, I was not born in the Usenet era and honestly would have like to
> >> what they had - a standard protocol for communication. This exists t
> >> but guess what has happened to it, SPAM, SPAM and more SPAM.
> >>
> >> I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I surely
> >> cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows discussions o
> >> topics with any client you want to use. Therefore I want to create a
> >> Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer to it as Usenet-Next as it ne
> >> a name that people can use to relate to this proposal.
> >>
> >>
> >> So how shall we make our network rid of spam. Well the thing is to b
> >> strict in both the user registration process and the server
> >> configurations and who our servers peer with. I am not well versed a
> >> all in NNTP but that is why I'd like to get you people to mail me
> >> (deavmi [at] disroot [dot] org) so we discuss the setup but also the
> >> rules for the network which will be very strict and lastly how these
> >> things are linked together.
> >>
> >>
> >> Remember, we are not migrating Usenet but creating our own network,
> >> Usenet-Next, therefore we will not have any relation to the Usenet
> >> network or community, the only relation we will have is making them
> >> aware of our new proposal and network.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would like to save the idea of a distributed network of servers
> >> tossing posts around to create a decentralized but common database o
> >> news - this is Usenet. I would greatly appreciate mail from anyone w
> >> would like to discuss this proposal and do some tests and setup the
> >> network. I would also like to note that I am not making myself the
> >> network king or anything, I just want to start the discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >> I am sorry for the spam I have caused. But spam is something that is
> >> useless, and this is not spam. I have contradicted myself there, sor
> >> I just felt that this is a matter of emergency. I don't want to reso
> >> to terrible centralized web forums, I love Usenet, even for the 2 da
> >> have been using it but I could not come to terms with and accept the
> >> spam.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi)
> > So according to a Usenet user my approach of the walled garden is bad. Well,
> > at least I started a discussion. I'd like suggestions then on how
> > we could make this network but still be strict but open? D you see what
> > I mean?
> Email from John:
> Well thank you Mr. Levine. I appreciate that. I just wished there was a
> way. I just think if we had a Usenet Comittee it would make a hell of a
> difference, so we can control which servers are peered and what not.
> Idk, sounds ike a heck of a lot of work anyway.
> On 2016-11-20 07:27 PM, Comp.compilers wrote:
> >> Do you have a suggestion for what to do? (No sarcasm intended, I am
> honestly asking)
> > Live with it, I'm afraid. While I expect we could boot off some of
> the cruddier usenet servers, I don't think it'd make much difference
> since there's too many people who get phished and bad guys use their otherwise
> legitimate accounts.
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, comp.compilers moderator,
> > johnl@iecc.com, http://compilers.iecc.com
> --- SBBSecho 3.00-Linux
> * Origin: Electronic Warfare BBS | http://www.ewbbs.net (57:57/11)
--- Virtual Advanced Ver 2 for DOS
* Origin: GatorNet HQ BBS (57:57/0)
|
